With the impending Council elections we must be very careful of those who use mistruths to try to convince voters of certain points. A mistruth is were true information is used to deliberately create a false impression.
A case in point is the information used by Brendon Falk (FCC 20-01-12) to try to create the impression that Council is not in a sound financial position.
Firstly, he uses the consolidated figures of Council and Wide Bay Water. This, of course disguises the fact that some of the consolidated figures are sums that are owed by WBW to Council. It is money that Council owes, and pays, to itself .
Mr Falk informs us that the short term liabilities (current liabilities) are $34million. But he fails to also inform us that current receivables total over $29million. And most of these are secured debts. The nett position is less than $5million. For Council <$1m.
He next informs us that $10.4million went in finance expenses without mentioning the $9.3million of interest income. Why? In fact the figures for Council show a cost of only $5.2million and interest earnings of $8.5 million. A nett profit.
Nett income for the year does not take into account ‘book’ income from revaluation. Council’s net income for last financial year was $14.6 as stated but that for the previous year was over $19million. Not the $1.2million quoted in the letter.
Fairer rates does not mean that everybody will necessarily pay less rates. But if you think that having the people of Division 5 (Dundowran through to Howard) paying higher rates than their counterparts living in Hervey Bay is fair, I do not. And it must be fixed.
More Information
Jim MacKellar
Mobile: 0418 732 506
Jim,
I think it is fair to state ALL politicians at all levels manipulate the truth. This is really of no importance accept for the fact that most of the electorate believe what they read! Surprised, no, not really, most of the electorate don’t give a shit, the only thing that concerns them is their hip pocket.
This council is bad, but in all fairness they took over some sinking ships. The state of Maryborough’s water, sewage and swimming pool indicate a lack of ongoing maintenance. Keeping rates low to ensure re-election was the prime concern of most councillors.
Hervey Bay was no better, $millions spent on our airport based on a lie, A water park that was to be cost neutral, a lack of kerbing & channelling in areas years old, why go on?
You voted for old mates and you got what you wanted.
Rates are based on unimproved land valuations as per State Government evaluations. I’m interested in why Mr MacKellar believes that Div 5 residents pay more rates than other rate payers. I don’t think residents in Burrum Town and other rural areas pay more rates than anyone else does apart from variations caused by the above mentioned constraints. Rates categories are not based on geographic location in the main. Plus Council was required to equalise rates over the entire region which has been a big challenge. Anyhow if Mr MacKellar wants to reduce rates income from Div 5 where will he obtain the missing income from? Thanks, Sue
Rates are now based on site valuations, not unimproved valuation, Sue. But valuations are the reason for the difference in rates. The valuations of the beach side towns have grown by more than those in the inner suburbs of Hervey Bay. Higher valuations = higher rates.
Council was never required to equalise rates across the region. That is another mistruth used by Council to justify using the lazy method to construct a new rating system. The State required that a single rating system be introduced for the region to replace the previous four used before amalgamation.
A single rate system does not mean that rates have to be equalized, although I do allow that that is what the Councillors were told by the executive. A single rate system still allows Council to apply its stated priciples of user pays, fairness and consistency. It just takes a fair bit more work to achieve while equalization is just too easy.
Where does the money come from – Council has to ‘bite the bullet’ and find better ways in which to do business to reduce its costs. If this means that some of the ‘luxury’ items in its budget, i.e. new art galleries, new vehicles, $250,000/year on new laptop computers and workstations etc., have to removed then so be it. The welfare of the residents must be come first.
Mistruths ? Lies by omission of the truth. ? ( facts ) or as John Neve has stated , manipulation of the truth. ? ( John should be heeded on this point as he is an expert. )
Ref: The water park – airport.
Individual bitterness at the outcome of council elections is pointless . The outcome is a reflection of the collective view of ratepayers assessment of candidates .
Democracy in action. !
The Galah,
Seems to suggest I have bent the facts regarding “The water park- airport”, perhaps he’d like to point out where?
He goes on to suggest, regarding council “The outcome is a reflection of the collective view or ratepayers assessment of candidates”. So I’d have to ask, tell us Galah, why the discontent in our region?
John Neve
John…ref your question ” why the discontent in our region. ? ”
The discontent may loom as large in the minds of those zealots who steadfastly oppose incumbent councillors . Whether it is majority ” discontent ” won’t be known till after the election.
I reiterate ” election outcomes are a reflection of the collective view of ratepayer’s assessment of candidates. ” Common logic John.
The Galah,
While I acknowledge that the squeaky wheels make the most noise, you’d have to acknowledge 90% of letters to the Ed in both papers, are complaints about council.
Talk back radio and blogs are the same, so without doubt there is a high level of
discontent in our region.
You addressed my second question, now try answering the first.